1) 1) Players: each clan submits a list of eligible players. There are 250 player spots in the proposed method. Assign each player a number then randomize that for all 250 player slots. The first 25 would be the 1v1 for each team, 26-75 the doubles pairs, 76-150 the triples teams, and 151-250 the quads teams. When a number comes up more than once in a pairing (for example, if you get a quad team of 1, 1, 2, and 4, you simply skip the duplicate number and add one more to the bottom). This system means it's truly random who plays who, but obviously not all players would get the same number of games. That's particularly tricky for freemiums, but there is a work-around for that too, based on proper scheduling.

2) Maps: random map setting on CC.

3) Settings: same as players. As the above plan calls for 100 games, you simply assign a number to each applicable setting (1 for escalating, 2 for flat rate, 3 for no spoils, and 4 for nuclear, for example) then at random.org ask it to provide 100 integers between 1 and 4. Then you apply them to games as they come up. The same can be done for reinforcements, trench, and fog, and even freestyle and manual if we choose to allow them.

Day 1: Clans agree to terms.1 : Clans each submit a list of eligible players between 8 and 16, along with up to 2 designated game creators.2 : denominator submits a spreadsheet of all 100 games with players and settings.3 : Games start at a pace of 16 per week (8 created by each clan - 2 each of 1v1, doubles, triples, quadruples).

DBC will hold their own against any clan with this. We are all great players, just we suck at playing scripted maps that the other clan picks out.

So who out there is brave enough to take on the Random challenge DBC style. (The CCUP4 cup final that never was!)

Last edited by Chewie1 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

jsnyder748 wrote:its funny how all you guys care so much about this elitest crap....its online risk people

plus what silver said there is already a random league most clans are in....i think

Want to go to war then?

I like playing a lot vs anyone, but my clan doesn't do too many challenges at one time like OSA and I dont mind being in only 2-3 challenges at a time because I can just play random stuff. It would be up to mudpuppy and everyone else

swimmerdude99 wrote:Suppose someone were to offer you a challenge if the 1v1s were taken away and each player were only allowed to play X number of times so that everyone got to play almost equal amount of games?

swimmerdude99 wrote:Suppose someone were to offer you a challenge if the 1v1s were taken away and each player were only allowed to play X number of times so that everyone got to play almost equal amount of games?

Wouldnt be truly random then would it.

Why drop the 1v1 s?

Well if you truly want truly random perhaps you should make a list of clans and randomly select your opponent. By excluding so many clans and only targeting a top elitist clan you are removing an element of random as well.

12:11:16 ‹Swifte› good thing we have the beta program to weed all these problems out 12:15:00 * IcePack joins Social12:15:35 ‹Swifte› well that's just bad timing

swimmerdude99 wrote:Suppose someone were to offer you a challenge if the 1v1s were taken away and each player were only allowed to play X number of times so that everyone got to play almost equal amount of games?

Wouldnt be truly random then would it.

Why drop the 1v1 s?

Well if you truly want truly random perhaps you should make a list of clans and randomly select your opponent. By excluding so many clans and only targeting a top elitist clan you are removing an element of random as well.

swimmerdude99 wrote:Suppose someone were to offer you a challenge if the 1v1s were taken away and each player were only allowed to play X number of times so that everyone got to play almost equal amount of games?

Wouldnt be truly random then would it.

Why drop the 1v1 s?

Because 1v1s would make it too random. You might as well just draw straws to determine who wins in a 1v1. Then again maybe you should do that for the whole challenge if you don't mind 25 of the games being based on dice

swimmerdude99 wrote:Suppose someone were to offer you a challenge if the 1v1s were taken away and each player were only allowed to play X number of times so that everyone got to play almost equal amount of games?

Wouldnt be truly random then would it.

Why drop the 1v1 s?

Because 1v1s would make it too random. You might as well just draw straws to determine who wins in a 1v1. Then again maybe you should do that for the whole challenge if you don't mind 25 of the games being based on dice

swimmerdude99 wrote:Suppose someone were to offer you a challenge if the 1v1s were taken away and each player were only allowed to play X number of times so that everyone got to play almost equal amount of games?

Wouldnt be truly random then would it.

Why drop the 1v1 s?

Because 1v1s would make it too random. You might as well just draw straws to determine who wins in a 1v1. Then again maybe you should do that for the whole challenge if you don't mind 25 of the games being based on dice

So you actually believe that there is no skill in winning a 1v1 game?

If both players know what they are doing it is 100% skill. I'd say on the whole a 1v1 match is gonna be 80% luck and 20% skill.